it is sad that @thetraveller has disappeared. I would have much appreciated some clarifications on the nature of the "new" paper. If there are no replies, it seems to me that he/she will lose any credibility left.

Francesco,

This is the problem with communications when people that don't use their real names indulge in promotion, claiming that they have special connections, that they are "in the know", "they know more and have better information", that they have special access to unpublished reports and unaccessible information and special influence, discussing "programs that went dark", access to "proprietary secret information" : they can always come back under another monicker, since nobody knows who they really are.

There is no real credibility issue, because credibility is attached to a monicker instead of to a real name. All they have to do is to change their monicker. This is a great difference between communications in real life and communications in a forum.

JR

Agreed; but, as such, I expect from people discussing in this particular forum a level of professionalism in handling human relations close to the one shown in dealing with equations

it is sad that @thetraveller has disappeared. I would have much appreciated some clarifications on the nature of the "new" paper. If there are no replies, it seems to me that he/she will lose any credibility left.

Francesco,

This is the problem with communications when people don't use their real names to indulge in promotion, claiming that they have special connections, that they are "in the know", "they know more and have better information", that they have special access to unpublished reports and unaccessible information and special influence, discussing "dark programs" and behavior in an Internet forum that they would be more careful to indulge in if they were using their real names: they can always come back under another monicker, since nobody knows who they really are when using monickers.

There is no real credibility issue, because credibility is attached to a monicker instead of to a real name. All they have to do is to change their monicker. This is a great difference between communications in real life and communications in a forum.

JR

While I enjoyed Mr Ts infectious enthusiasm, many posts were repeats and reminded me of advocacy posts. There is a growing marketing industry out there that pays people for position statements on social media; sponsored advertising in the 21st century if you will. Not saying Mr T is one, but posters should avoid these traps...it is transparent to many. And yes, nicknames are fine but real names on formal papers is a must.

Not just a "new paper" was promised but what was much more outlandish (and completely unneeded), it was claimed that the paper was going to appear in a "peer-reviewed journal" (apparently addressing the poster's self-perceived problem that none of Shawyer's prior publications ever appeared in peer-reviewed journals), that the paper "was under peer-review", and that, upon having the rare privilege of being able to read the paper before publication (a privilege that people usually keep in confidence and never disclose in a public forum), it was (again, without any need) claimed that the paper would "end all doubt" about the EM Drive.

Instead, rather than "ending all doubt" about the EM Drive, the recently posted (what is claimed to be) abstract of the paper is in the process of becoming the sum total of all doubts about Shawyer's superconducting EM Drive claims: (notice the claim right in the title that this is the abstract from the soon to be released EMDrive peer reviewed paper):

Thus, rather than acting as an advocacy group, it ultimately, and unfortunately, acts as a demolition of credibility. So something doesn't make rational sense here.

I wonder whether Mr. Shawyer is reading this and perhaps he can clarify in his blog http://emdrive.com/, under "Recent News" whether it was true that other people (it is claimed at least "two active NSF active members") had been given access to a paper of his that was being peer-reviewed, and whether the abstract that was published (as purportedly being the peer-reviewed paper) is correct or is it just a verbatim reproduction of his old 2014 conference paper.

it is sad that @thetraveller has disappeared. I would have much appreciated some clarifications on the nature of the "new" paper. If there are no replies, it seems to me that he/she will lose any credibility left.

Francesco,

This is the problem with communications when people don't use their real names to indulge in promotion, claiming that they have special connections, that they are "in the know", "they know more and have better information", that they have special access to unpublished reports and unaccessible information and special influence, discussing "dark programs" and behavior in an Internet forum that they would be more careful to indulge in if they were using their real names: they can always come back under another monicker, since nobody knows who they really are when using monickers.

There is no real credibility issue, because credibility is attached to a monicker instead of to a real name. All they have to do is to change their monicker. This is a great difference between communications in real life and communications in a forum.

JR

While I enjoyed Mr Ts infectious enthusiasm, many posts were repeats and reminded me of advocacy posts. There is a growing marketing industry out there that pays people for position statements on social media; sponsored advertising in the 21st century if you will. Not saying Mr T is one, but posters should avoid these traps...it is transparent to many. And yes, nicknames are fine but real names on formal papers is a must.

Not just a "new paper" was promised but what was much more outlandish (and completely unneeded), it was claimed that the paper was going to appear in a "peer-reviewed journal" (apparently addressing the poster's self-perceived problem that none of Shawyer's prior publications ever appeared in peer-reviewed journals), that the paper "was under peer-review", and that, upon having the rare privilege of being able to read the paper before publication (a privilege that people usually keep in confidence and never disclose in a public forum), it was (again, without any need) claimed that the paper would "end all doubt" about the EM Drive.

Instead, rather than "ending all doubt" about the EM Drive, the recently posted (what is claimed to be) abstract of the paper is in the process of becoming the sum total of all doubts about the EM Drive. Rather than acting as an advocacy group, it ultimately acts as a demolition of credibility.

I wonder whether Mr. Shawyer is reading this and perhaps he can clarify in his blog whether it was true that other people had been given access to a paper of his that was being peer-reviewed, and whether the abstract that was published (as purportedly being the peer-reviewed paper) is correct or is it a verbatim reproduction of his old 2014 conference paper.

If these posts were meant to assist his cause they've actually done the opposite and rather damaged it. If this poster was a fan of his he has done the subject of his support no favours at all.

Add to that the sudden disappearance of DIY experimenters looking into this no wonder EM drive has a credibility problem.

As a general point it is all stuff like the above that adds to the general air of distrust around this topic and only aids its very swift dismissal by many, many people.

I would add, in my discipline (social sciences & economics) it is praxis to circulate papers prior to peer review for comments by fellow academics. It is even normal to put your draft paper available for download on websites such as www.ssrn.com or ideas.repec.org. I have done it myself quite a few times. There is absolutely no point in protecting a perspective journal article from disclosure because -if it is serious research- nobody will be able to replicate it fast enough and attribution is never an issue, ESPECIALLY when the paper has been formally uploaded on a working papers repository. There no problem with protection of industrial secrecy either, because all peer-reviewed journals are accessible to most academicians: f you want to keep industrial secrecy the last thing you want is double-blind peer review & journals' publication. So such secrecy around a draft paper sounds extremely, extremely weird to me. But then again,. maybe there is some disciplinary culture at work which I am not acquainted with.

@Rodal"Where did you place the antenna for the L=9 inch model to get resonance at 2.4516 GHz ??

Or is it simply due to the high Q, which doesn't allow you to get these solutions unless your initial guess is within the bandwidth frequency/Q ?"

The antenna is 0.5 wavelengths of the drive from the small end. The antenna is 0.2556868 wavelengths long, (that's0.029 m) centered in the cavity. It was configured laterally to excite a TE mode but evidently it excited the TM mode. I will upload field patterns today to verify the mode excited. If it's not TM 212 then, back to the drawing board.

Regarding the second question, I need to study the Harminv theory of operation a little bit, maybe that will shed some light.

At this stage there is only one way to boost up credibility : to have a WORKING device, able to produce hundreds of mN's of thrust... best of all would be a self lifting device ofc...

In spite of all theoretical contemplations made so far, nothing can be concluded from it and the experimental tests done so far either lack credibility (due to missing data) or are unable to produce clear signals that exceed various background noises...

Fancy papers on how it could be in the future will not help boost credibility, but will only deepen the skepticism. Until experimentally proven, no body seriously believes in the straight linear scalability. There isn't a single device on this world that scales up linearly with a factor 1000 or more. Such claims have their perception against them and make people believe they're just hot-air balloons.

The time of big words and grand gestures of what could become is long over....just show off the damn thing...

I would like to say, that I appreciate @TheTraveller's enthusiasm for Mr. Shawyer's work (not to mention the value of his personal relationship to him) and hope he returns to the discussion. He has for sure, provided unique data points to this forum, Reddit, and in particular the wiki (I'm the guy who set it up).

We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements. The various DIY'ers here thankfully don't have that problem (yet!).

Any crumbs dropped in the meantime (see: @TheTraveller, Paul March, etc.) will continue to be insufficient to satisfy the audience in one way or another, no matter what they were. Perhaps we could crowdsource some marketing consultants for SPR Ltd. to help manage the public expectations better?

If the phenomenon is real, the huge possibilities here, mean this vacuum is filled with speculation; unfortunately some of this drifts into personal attacks. I do hope @TheTraveller disregards these and rejoins the conversation.

"An Introduction to Gravity Modification: A Guide to Using Laithwaite's and Podkletnov's Experiments and the Physics of Forces for Empirical Results

Benjamin T. Solomon

Universal-Publishers, 2012 - Science - 532 pages

An Introduction to Gravity Modification, Second Edition is the result of a 12-year (1999-2011) study into the theoretical and technological feasibility of gravity modification, that presents the new physics of forces by replacing relativistic, quantum and string theories with process models. Gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces are unified by Ni fields, and obey a common equation g = (tau)c DEGREES2. Gravity modification is defined as the modification of the strength and direction of the gravitational acceleration without the use of mass as the primary source of this modification, in local space time. It consists of field modulation and field vectoring. Field modulation is the ability to attenuate or amplify a force field. Field vectoring is the ability to change the direction of this force field . This book reaches out to a wider audience, and not just to the theoretical physicist; to engineers and technologist who have the funding to experiment; just as Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna and discovered the microwave background radiation. The mathematics is easier than that taught in theoretical physics and therefore accessible to a wider audience such as these engineers..."

"If such SC mirrors for GR waves were indeed to exist in Nature, then moving SC mirrors would notonly be able to do work like a piston on these waves, but would also simultaneously lead to a Dopplereffect that leads to the exponential amplification of these waves above the threshold for parametric oscillation,as explained above. Thus, a laser-like generation of coherent GR waves starting from vacuumfluctuations should become possible. If so, a Hertz-like experiment for GR radiation at microwave frequencies[15] would become feasible to perform."

"An Introduction to Gravity Modification: A Guide to Using Laithwaite's and Podkletnov's Experiments and the Physics of Forces for Empirical Results

Benjamin T. Solomon

Universal-Publishers, 2012 - Science - 532 pages

An Introduction to Gravity Modification, Second Edition is the result of a 12-year (1999-2011) study into the theoretical and technological feasibility of gravity modification, that presents the new physics of forces by replacing relativistic, quantum and string theories with process models. Gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces are unified by Ni fields, and obey a common equation g = (tau)c DEGREES2. Gravity modification is defined as the modification of the strength and direction of the gravitational acceleration without the use of mass as the primary source of this modification, in local space time. It consists of field modulation and field vectoring. Field modulation is the ability to attenuate or amplify a force field. Field vectoring is the ability to change the direction of this force field . This book reaches out to a wider audience, and not just to the theoretical physicist; to engineers and technologist who have the funding to experiment; just as Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna and discovered the microwave background radiation. The mathematics is easier than that taught in theoretical physics and therefore accessible to a wider audience such as these engineers..."

"Author Of 'Introduction To Gravity Modification' Has No Plans For A Time Machine" article in Forbes:

"If such SC mirrors for GR waves were indeed to exist in Nature, then moving SC mirrors would notonly be able to do work like a piston on these waves, but would also simultaneously lead to a Dopplereffect that leads to the exponential amplification of these waves above the threshold for parametric oscillation,as explained above. Thus, a laser-like generation of coherent GR waves starting from vacuumfluctuations should become possible. If so, a Hertz-like experiment for GR radiation at microwave frequencies[15] would become feasible to perform."

...We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements. ...-Rolf

Licensing agreements?

What evidence do you have of Shawyer having any licensing agreements? This is in conflict with the information that was published by WallofWolfStreet in this thread a few pages ago. Did you see the publicly available information he posted? There are only 3 patents that are only enforceable in Great Britain.

It would be interesting if you could disclose what information you have on Licensing agreements that Shawyer has, as this is the first time I hear of Licensing Agreements. Licensing Agreements allude to something real that is there to license and for the licensees to pay periodic Royalty fees for such License Agreements.

I have been involved in Licensing Agreements and Intellectual Property in my professional life, and I'm surprised at the mention of Licensing Agreements for something as controversial as the EM Drive. It would be like talking about Licensing Agreements for Cold Fusion, for example.

In this NSF thread we should strive to challenge information like this (is this speculation ), these are not personal attacks, there is nothing personal about it, it is important to separate fact from fiction. Dealing with outlandish claims of "having access to unpublished papers under peer-review that will end all doubts" is not a personal attack.

I would like to say, that I appreciate @TheTraveller's enthusiasm for Mr. Shawyer's work (not to mention the value of his personal relationship to him) and hope he returns to the discussion. He has for sure, provided unique data points to this forum, Reddit, and in particular the wiki (I'm the guy who set it up).

We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements. The various DIY'ers here thankfully don't have that problem (yet!).

Any crumbs dropped in the meantime (see: @TheTraveller, Paul March, etc.) will continue to be insufficient to satisfy the audience in one way or another, no matter what they were. Perhaps we could crowdsource some marketing consultants for SPR Ltd. to help manage the public expectations better?

If the phenomenon is real, the huge possibilities here, mean this vacuum is filled with speculation; unfortunately some of this drifts into personal attacks. I do hope @TheTraveller disregards these and rejoins the conversation.

-Rolf

Rolf, I just wanted to address a specific part of your quote, namely:

Quote

We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements.

I have commented a few times, at least with my reddit posts, that I am very skeptical that any such licensing agreements actually exist. I am also skeptical that there are many, if any at all, private companies working on this tech. I know this goes against what we have heard from Shawyer, but I have reason to doubt what he says.

Simply put, All of Shawyer's patents are in the UK alone. He claims that the west is not developing technology, and that "we need to think about the developing countries that don't have a vested interest in the long-haul aircraft market" (paraphrasing). He claims that these mysterious countries/companies have licensing agreements, and this is the cause of his silence. (At least thetraveller was of this opinion, which he may have heard directly from Shawyer).

Here is the kicker though: A foreign country/company, outside of the UK, has zero obligation to have an sort of licensing deal with SPR whatsoever.

SPR's patents are only in the UK. China or India, or any organization therein, has zero need to license anything. He has nothing they need. They can go online and read his patents, or look at his papers, just like we can. I see absolutely no reason why a private company would have a licensing agreement with SPR, it has no patents outside of the UK to license!

I think I have found an acoustic analogue of this "doppler shift causing inertial mass difference" theory, but I'm not sure if it makes sense. I'd like to run it past you as an idea.If I'm completely wrong, please tell me so.

Suppose we have a resonating metal string like a guitar string (I play guitar, I like it).We know that the frequencies of the waves on the string satisfy:fn = nv / 2LWhere v is the speed of the wave in the string. This is however assuming that the speed of the wave is constant in the string, and equal to:v = sqrt( T / rho )where T is the tension and rho is the density of the string.

If the speed of the wave were variable in the string (i.e. the string had a "variable refractive index", so to speak), then the wave would be frequency-shifted along the string, and we would have:fn(x) = nv(x) / 2L(this is just refraction, similar to what happens to sea waves when they approach the shore and the depth changes)

At this point for any given n the frequency "seen" on one side of the string f0 is different from the one "seen" on the other side fL.From now on I will omit the n as the following analysis should hold for each n similarly.

If we pushed on the system on one side of the string and compressed it, we would cause the string to temporarily shorten. Shortening the string means shortening L, which means increasing the frequency.I think this effect travels along the system with the same speed of the wave if it is mechanical pressure (it is sound). If we time this correctly, we can push for a short enough time that we don't affect the whole string while pushing.

What your theory is saying, applied to this case, is that if we tapped the system on the f0 side, then when we are applying the force we would be "seeing" a DeltaFrequency based on f0, whereas if we tapped the system on the fL side we would be "seeing" a DeltaFrequency based on fL.In other words a dL applied to one side causes f0 to become nv(0)/2(L-dL), whereas on the other side it causes fL to become nv(L)/2(L-dL).(note that the tension T also decreases, but T is under a square root so I'm assuming dv is less significant than dL and that's why I'm keeping v(0) and v(L) constant - we could double-check numbers if needed).

The two doppler shifts are different and they cause a different resistance to movement (by absorbing energy from the string vibrations?), causing an apparent difference in inertial mass.

So. Can we test this theory by building an "acoustic EmDrive"?

How do we manufacture this? I'm not entirely sure.First, we have to vary the speed of the wave along the string. We could use a variable density material; for example we could heat up a steel string on one side and the temperature gradient would cause a density gradient. We would get:v(x) = sqrt( T / rho(x) )Does this work? Or would T also change with rho and balance out?Secondly, we need to be able to compress/expand the string at will on either side. We could mount the string on a beam and have moveable endpoints?

The duty cycle would be:- Pluck the string and give it some energy.- Compress it on the side that "exposes less inertial mass".- Re-expand it on the side that "exposes more inertial mass".- Measure net velocity imparted to the system, and the energy of the wave in the string.- Hopefully for CoE the kinetic energy gained will be related to the energy lost by the wave in the string.

Does this make sense as a thought experiment, or even as a physical experiment?Or am I going completely off track and totally missed something?

I would like to say, that I appreciate @TheTraveller's enthusiasm for Mr. Shawyer's work (not to mention the value of his personal relationship to him) and hope he returns to the discussion. He has for sure, provided unique data points to this forum, Reddit, and in particular the wiki (I'm the guy who set it up).

We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements. The various DIY'ers here thankfully don't have that problem (yet!).

Any crumbs dropped in the meantime (see: @TheTraveller, Paul March, etc.) will continue to be insufficient to satisfy the audience in one way or another, no matter what they were. Perhaps we could crowdsource some marketing consultants for SPR Ltd. to help manage the public expectations better?

If the phenomenon is real, the huge possibilities here, mean this vacuum is filled with speculation; unfortunately some of this drifts into personal attacks. I do hope @TheTraveller disregards these and rejoins the conversation.

-Rolf

Rolf, I just wanted to address a specific part of your quote, namely:

Quote

We can probably all agree that Mr. Shawyer appears to be in a difficult position, where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any existing licensing agreements.

I have commented a few times, at least with my reddit posts, that I am very skeptical that any such licensing agreements actually exist. I am also skeptical that there are many, if any at all, private companies working on this tech. I know this goes against what we have heard from Shawyer, but I have reason to doubt what he says.

Simply put, All of Shawyer's patents are in the UK alone. He claims that the west is not developing technology, and that "we need to think about the developing countries that don't have a vested interest in the long-haul aircraft market" (paraphrasing). He claims that these mysterious countries/companies have licensing agreements, and this is the cause of his silence. (At least thetraveller was of this opinion, which he may have heard directly from Shawyer).

Here is the kicker though: A foreign country/company, outside of the UK, has zero obligation to have an sort of licensing deal with SPR whatsoever.

SPR's patents are only in the UK. China or India, or any organization therein, has zero need to license anything. He has nothing they need. They can go online and read his patents, or look at his papers, just like we can. I see absolutely no reason why a private company would have a licensing agreement with SPR, it has no patents outside of the UK to license!

Edit: Rodal already covered this above.

I am not sure if the attached has been covered on here before but it states "EmDrive Licence: 10 year exclusive master licence £100,000,000 comprised of2 years development to Flight Qualified status @ £10m per year pro rata, plusconsultancy from Roger Shawyer to divest expertise.Break clause at 2 years, if project fails to achieve FQ status all rights revert to SPR.A further 3 year exclusive use of EmDrive @ £10m per annum.After 3 years of exclusive use, master licensee is required to sub licence technology onsimilar terms, if requested, to third parties.For 10 years, royalties of £150k per space vehicle using EmDrive (equivalent to 10% ofthe saving on build cost).After 10 years, master licensee has first right of refusal on renewing master licence"

I'd argue without hearing anything from credible sources such as EW, who have now understandable shied off from further public disclosure, there is nothing that can really be said more on the matter that carries any weight with the wider scientific community or the public as a whole. In fact I would opinion EM drive has far more of a credibility issue now than say a year ago.

I freely admit I was almost convinced but I'm now highly sceptical because of the way things have panned out. Maybe there is something in it but there is so much nonsense in the way how would you tell.

I apologize, I didn't mean to imply I had any knowledge of any licensing agreements between Mr. Shawyer and other entities (and the "personal attacks" I was referring to were in comments on the Reddit sub). What I should have said, was:

Quote

... where any desire he may have to announce details (theoretical or experimental) would be at odds with any licensing agreements *that may exist* ...

I was merely trying to provide a rationale for Mr. Shawyer's actions, and hopefully encourage @TheTraveller to keep delivering the crumbs, such as they are. The irony is not lost on me, that by doing so I fell into the same exact speculation trap I warned of!

Sorry for the diversion. If you need any wiki help you know where to find me.